Like minimum wage, education, and health care.

The thing is, I still feel capitalism is exploitive.

Here is a video that explains why capitalism is bad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK0MhTlt6Y&feature=related

If "fairness" is what everybody is worried about.
I think increasing the individual income tax rate (possibly to 80-90%) for the wealthiest people while decreasing the tax rate of corporations (possibly to zero).
Does anyone disagree that the money kept in corporations this way would lead to more (and better paying) jobs and increased economic prosperity?

@LordVipor: I am an anarchist. There should be no government or taxes.

@CM

Now I'm really confused. With no government, who would enforce your credit idea?

@Conservative Man: The idea that the untalented should have a shot at having sports cars and whatnot is ludicrous. The reason that talented well educated people have expensive things is pure supply and demand. 99% of citizens can work a cash register or dig graves, but only say 2% can engineer sophisticated weaponry for the military.

Without the incentive of being rich and having nice things why would I go to school for 10 years to get paid as much as someone who works a cash register? Essentially I am giving up 10 years of pay for no gain.

I think anarchism is the most pathetic excuse at a political idealogy. Only a relentless optimist could ever think that society could function without government imo.

*ideology *

Well, in all fairness, you shouldn't be motivated purely by money. With that being said, I wouldn't work for free.

"you shouldn't be motivated purely by money"

Not purely but its sure as hell a strong consideration.People are greedy.

@Tom: Why couldn't society function without a government?

Because it would just be a power struggle. Society would not progress. The government funds a lot of research that leads to social progress. Plus with no government whose stopping me from going to my neighbors and shooting him and taking his stuff?

@Tom again: And why shouldn't everyone be equal? I think that all people who contribute to society are equally important, and should be equal.

@Abge: Companies would refuse service to people without enough credits.

Also, have you checked out Somalia? Thats pretty much the closest thing to anarchy in the world. How's it working out for them?

@Tom: Would you really do that if there was no government? Because I sure as hell wouldn't. It's a terrible thing to do.

@Tom again: Somalia is not good anarchy. I do NOT want to dissolve government overnight. Good anarchy takes time to set up, while Somalia basically lost its government overnight.

"And why shouldn't everyone be equal? I think that all people who contribute to society are equally important, and should be equal."

Again, why would I spend time getting educated to become an electrical engineer if I am to be treated the same as a janitor? The opportunity cost of getting educated is not only the cost of the education, but of the lost income that could have been earned had you been employed instead of getting schooled. In your system I would not get educated and just start working a cash register at age 10

"Good anarchy takes time to set up"

Hmmm, do you have first hand knowledge of this? If it doesn't happen overnight, people will just submit and not build private armies to attempt to seize power?

@Tom: Wouldn't you rather be an electrical engineer than a janitor? I would. But the fact is, everyone that contributes to society is important, and they deserve to be equal.

@abgemacht - I work for money. Nothing else. Sure, I happen to enjoy what I do, but if I wasn't being paid, I wouldn't go in to the office. I work so that I can have the money to buy the things I want and enjoy the time I'm not at work. If that makes me greedy, then I'm a greedy sumbitch and I don't really give a fuck.

@Tom: When good anarchy is set up, no one would want to fight for someone so they can gain power.

@everyone: I'm going to watch TV. I'll continue the debate on commercials.

Yes, I would rather be an electrical engineer, but I would need a good education to start, so I would be probably say 21 or 22 at the earliest to start earning wages (or credits in your dreamworld). If I became a janitor at age 13 I would be much better off.

@CM - No, everyone who contributes to society does not deserve to be equal. That is the problem. Everyone has the same basic value as a human being, but value to society is based on contribution and a surgeon who daily saves lives is worth a hell of a lot more to society than the grocery store bag boy. I can bag groceries myself, but I sure as hell can't put a pacemaker in the chest of someone I love. Similarly, I can cook a hamburger the same as the grill cook at Waffle House, but he probably can't write software that collects and provides vital health information to first responders in an emergency (www.myroadid.com).

So my value to society *is* greater than the bag boy and the grill cook, but the surgeon's value is greater than mine.

+1 Draugnar. That is a very good way to explain it.

"Companies would refuse service to people without enough credits."

Why? Without someone backing the credits, why would companies give people anything?

@Draug

But, if you didn't enjoy what you did, you'd probably try to find a different job, no? That was my only point.

But why does differing value equal unequality? At the very least, everyone should have the same starting ability to provide the greatest value to society, as the more people benefitting society, the better. But people will only have an equal starting point if they're parents are equal with other members of society. So a fair society equals a more productive society.

@Abge: Because before we go into this system, all people must realize that to benefit society, people without enough credits must not be served.